Rajasthan Court September 1998 Judgments
Uda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ404; 1999(1)WLC378
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 6-8-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16(1) and Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentences of six months' R. 1 and a fine Rs. 1,000 under the first count, and three months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 under the second count.2. The facts are that Hari Prakash, Food Inspector had inspected the shop of the petitioner, run under the name and style of Manohar Restaurant. The petitioner used to sell sweets, tea and milk. The Food Inspector asked the petitioner to produce the license which he did not. Thereafter, the Food Inspector gave notice to the petitioner for purchase of l, 1/2 Kgs. 'Laddu' for analysis. He purchased 'Laddu' for Rs. 18, divided them in three parts, and put them in the three bottles. After sealing the bottles, he sent one bottle to the Forensic Science Laborato...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chandra Sharma Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj146; 1999(2)WLC565
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner after doing his Master of Arts degree from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1982, had passed first year of LL.B. from Sukhadia University, Udaipur of Academic Course (hereinafter to be referred to as 'A' Course) of LL.B. Examination by correspondence and was later on transferred to Kota Open University, Kota. He passed two years' 'A' course from Kota Open University by correspondence in the year 1991 as per marksheets attached as Annexures 1 and 1-A. The petitioner desired to take admission in third year course of LL.B. (Professional) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'P' course) in the University Law College, Jaipur. In the teaching wing of law, his application was not entertained for third year LL.B. (P) course for the academic session 1992-93. Being aggrieved, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. The University has filed written statement and relies on the Ordinances 253, 253-A and 253-B of the University Ordinances to the effec...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ842; 1999(1)WLC634
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The complainant Mukesh Parihar lodged FIR before the police on March 26, 1998 that the accused Anand Singh stabbed Bajrahg Singh, due to that Bajrang Singh died on the spot on March 26, 1998. The accused was arrested on that very day i.e. on March 26, 1998. He was produced before the Court on the next day i.e. on March 27, 1998 and the Court gave remand on that day. Since then, he was in judicial custody. However, on June 24, 1998, the accused submitted the bail application under Section 437 read with Section 167(2), Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate on the ground that 90 days were over and no charge-sheet was filed. According to the accused-petitioner, his bail application was not decided by the learned Magistrate on that day i.e. on 24th June, 1998 and the same was kept, on the next day i.e. on 25th June, 1998. On the next day i.e. on June 25,1998, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!NaIn Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ376
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal, Nain Singh has called in question the judgment dated 31 -10-81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby he was convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default two months' S. I.2. The case relates to an occurrence which took place on 13-1-81. In his statement recorded by the police on 13-1-81 at 6. p.m., Bhanwar Singh, injured, stated that at about 4.30 p.m. as he went out of his house, Nain Singh having sword in his hand and Hari Singh having 'Bevla' attacked him and an injury was caused by sword on his head. On this report, a case under Sections 324 and 323/34, IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323/34, IPC.3. Charges under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323/34, IPC were read over to Nain Singh. Hari Singh was charged with the offences under Sections 307/34, 326/34...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. (Retd.) C.R. Dudi Vs. S.S. Arya
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: 1999WLC(Raj)UC202; 1999(1)WLN210
Mohd. Yamin, J.1. This is a revision against the order of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 13.12.96 by which he allowed the appeal against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 6.11.96.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record.3. Plaintiff Capt. C.R. Dudi filed a civil suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. His case was that one Baijnath Sharma had purchased plot, described in para No. 2 of the plaint from Sanyukt Grah Nirmaan Samiti, Jaipur. He obtained allotment letter as well as site plan as well as obtained the possession of the plot. This plot measured 456 sq. yard. The plaintiff purchased the same from Shri Baijnath Sharma through agreement dated 26.7.91 @ Rs. 300/- per sq. yard and advanced Rs. 5,001/-and obtained possession thereof. The plaintiff was in possession of the said plot. He constructed a number of rooms, obtained electric connection and started a Milan Gar...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Chand Kasliwal Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj178; 1999(3)WLC295
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The land possessed by the father of the petitioner Jagannath as owner measuring 2053 sq. yds. of having been acquired in the year 1934 by the then Jaipur State was ultimately compensated by way of allotment of three plots numbering A-19, B-37, B-38 to the petitioner in Janta Colony Scheme measuring 133 sq. yds. vide allotment order dated 2-4-1977. Even though before having been allotted the plots in Janta Colony Scheme, the petitioner had to suffer many other allotments in lieu of his acquiring of his original land and repeated cancellations and reallotments. There is no dispute that the petitioner was the owner of the plot having been given to him by the erstwhile Jaipur State in the year 1927. This land was acquired by the State in the year 1934 and he was allotted alternative land after about 28 years on 15-11-1961 measuring 1333.3 sq. yds., as comprising of plot No. A-53 Moti Doongri Scheme. This Mod Doongri Scheme allotment was also cancelled for apparently n...
Tag this Judgment!Shanker Lal Verma and 13 ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ796Raj
Kokje, A.C.J. 1. The petitioners, in these cases, are Class IV servants in Government Departments, who have acquired a qualification equivalent to Secondary School Examination like Rashtra Bhasha Parichay from Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha; Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag. Allahabad etc. Some of them are working in the State Secretariat and some are working in other Government Departments. Class III employees of the Secretariat are governed by the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 and those Class III servants belonging to other departments are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1970 and 1957'). In both the Rules, there is a provision for promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts of Lower Division Clerks. The petitioners are desirous of promotion to the post of L.D.C. 2. Eligibility for promotion to the post of L.D.C. under the 1957 Rules was Secondary School Examination or i...
Tag this Judgment!Kesara Ram (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1451
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-12-95 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Sessions Case No. 4/93 (141/88) whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentences as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Kesara Ram (since de- (i) Under Section 147, I.P.C. One year's R. I. ceased) (ii) Under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. L.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, 6 months' S.I. (iii) Under Section 323, I.P.C. 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, 6 months' S.I. (iv) Under Section 379/149, I.P.C. 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, 6 months' S.I. 2. Bhura Ram (i) Under Section 147, I.P.C. One year's R.I. (ii) Under Section 302, I.P.C. L.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, 6 months' S.I. (iii) Under Section 323/149, I.P.C. 6 months' R.I....
Tag this Judgment!Gokul Vs. Rajasthan Muslim Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Raj90; 1999(2)WLC503
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner is aggrievedagainst the order dated 29-4-1985 (Annexure-8) passed by the Estate Officer, while exercising powers under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called as the Act) and District Judge (Annexure-9) passed in appeal against Annex-ure-8 respectively.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the premises where he was residing in Teela Basti near Sikar House outside Chandpole Gate, Jaipur City is in his possession for last more than 50 years. He had constructed his house at the place where it was sandy mounds initially but with hard labour he made pucca construction of the house many decades ago. It is the case of the petitioner that the Improvement Trust Jaipur claiming to be the owner of the property started realising rent from the father of the petitioner. One of the rent receipt issued by the UIT in the year 1969-70 is attached as Annexure-1. It is stated that a survey was conducted ...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ158
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. Relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Sohini Bai v. State of Rajasthan decided on 4-9-97 (S. B. Criminal) Misc. Bail Application No. 2473/98) (sic) learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was wholly wrong in dismissing the bail application without assigning any reasons. Learned Judge has not given any reason in rejecting the bail application in view of the Supreme Court Judgment reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : 1980 Cri LJ 426. There is lot of substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In Sohini Bai's case (supra) this Court considered not only the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : 1980 Cri LJ 426 but also considered other Judgments of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 149 : 1987 Cri LJ 197 and 1996 Cri LJ 2469 (SC) (sic) (para 6). In aforesaid judgments the Supreme Court has only observed that the Courts exercising bail jurisdiction normally do and should refrain fro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »